homophobia

[Liza Featherstone]

The sex acts themselves have of course been around forever (just check out those 
medival sculptures of cherubs eating each other.  ancient Greek proclivites 
well-known, etc) and Angela's right that there has probably always been 
same-sex desire in some fashion.  But there seems to be a lot of consensus among 
historians (D'Emilio, Katz, the fellow who wrote the excellent Gay New York, 
whose name now escapes me) that the communities, lifestyles, hangouts, etc. 
that make same-sex desire a viable habit flourished under urbanization, and 
barely exisited before. Jonathan Katz argues in The Invention of Heterosexuality 
(also v.good), that no sexual identities or categories exisited much before the 
last turn of  the century.

Liza

Jim heartfield wrote:
> 
> In message <36A6CE4D.E2B5B550 at netlink.com.au>, rc&am
> <rcollins at netlink.com.au> writes
> 
> > (this last theory of
> >the existence - rise? -of homosexuality in the article would be funny
> >if it were not so obviously wrong, an echo (mirror) of those who want
> >to 'return to the past' where there were no poofters.)  mode of
> >production explanations i would like to see, but this does not work in
> >the slightest; and nor does affirming urbanisation for making it
> >possible to do the dirty with those of the same sex work enough for me
> >as an explanation to now turn to celebrating technology as liberatory,
> >as 'living marxism' would bid us do.
> 
> I'm surprised that Angela objects to this, fairly routine argument that
> urbanisation creates a cosmopolitanism in which sexuality can develop
> apart from family ties. See for example John D'Emilio's essay Capitalism
> and Gay Identity.
> --
> Jim heartfield